Many seemed to enjoy the anecdotal stories of celebrities serving as spies. Due to considerable reader response, one decided to add a second installment. Hollywood has long worked hand in glove with government agencies, both the FBI and CIA. Unknown to most, CIA and its assorted sub-departments recently had a considerable hand in not only developing scripts for academy award nominated films Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, but also presided over the production of reality television series Top Chef and the cable television drama series Covert Affairs, and even best selling books such as The Devil’s Light. Continue reading “CELEBRITIES SOMETIMES MAKE THE BEST SPIES (Part II)”→
This next series of blog posts will serve to connect some dots in terms of the world conspiracy, now coming to fruition in the 21st century. Recently, I composed a post, concluding Aldous Huxley’s Brave New Word was not just an imaginative dystopian work of literature. Rather, it represented an elite blueprint for social, religious, and economic global control. In addition, Huxley had not written the book from the remove of a perceptive observer. In fact, he was an insider, belonging to the bloodline of an elite family, privy to the machinations and central purpose of an overall global agenda. Continue reading “UNHOLY TRINITY: SEX, DRUGS, ROCK and ROLL (part I)”→
This is a cautionary tale, about the distortion of an entire area of scientific study. This is how, with skillful semantics, the media sorcerers developed a political campaign into a bureaucratic bandwagon. Now, bombarded with daily dosages of propaganda, broadcast through television, newspapers, and magazines, many never think to question the fundamental philosophical and scientific assumptions proffered by those promoting the climate change agenda.
As one shall immediately observe, there is indeed much to question.
Throughout human history, climate has always changed.
Public figures trumpeting the climate change agenda however, want one to believe ‘climate change’ is anthtropogenic. It is now assumed, because of man’s exponential levels of carbon emissions, a climate apocalypse will soon befall the globe. Contrary to this dubious claim, however, is the fact climate change is not driven by human industrial activity and subsequent carbon emissions.
Rather, it is driven by the activities of the sun.
But, within the scientific community, and the public at large, it has become increasingly politically incorrect to suggest anything other than the standardized climate change orthodoxy.
To those most faithful adherents, nothing other than mankind and industrial growth is the culprit for changes in global climate. From any objective standpoint, with regard to the ‘climate change’ agenda, it is clear political perceptions have triumphed over scientific realities.
From even cursory observation, it is clear the climate change movement has transformed from scientific consensus, to political protest movement, and lately, to quasi-religious cult.
According to the accepted climate change dogma, mankind’s industrial revolution is leading the globe into the certain throes of climate disaster.
Thanks to the modern conveniences developed during the industrial era of the early twentieth century, luxuries once only available to the rich, have become abundantly available to almost everyone. Novel technologies, have made life easier and richer. Modern communications and transport, have made the world seem less foreign and distant.
The question remains, have these developments had any significant, if any, impact upon the world’s changing climate?
Turns out, the main tenet upholding the climate change agenda, that humans are the main source of carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere, is at odds with established scientific data, compiled over a period of several decades. However, if one were to listen to the shrill bleating of climate change zealots, they regard CO2, or carbon dioxide, as an industrial pollutant.
This is a fallacy.
Carbon dioxide is a major building block of life, produced by all living things.
One often hears the zealous mantra, that mankind must ‘reduce it’s carbon footprint’. This, is chiefly predicated on the idea of post-war climate statistics, demonstrating the earths climate has warmed, due to the exponential increase of industrial activity.
In fact, most of the earths temperature rise occurred before 1940, and has precipitously dropped going forward into the 21st century.
Contrary to climate change consensus, mankind’s overall carbon dioxide production levels are minute, comparative to other natural sources. Bacteria, animals and vegetation are responsible for over one-hundred fifty gigatons of annual carbon dioxide production, as opposed to less than six and one half gigatons representing the globes total annual industrial output.
In fact, volcanoes and the earths oceans are responsible for a much larger percentage of carbon dioxide production, than the collective output of the world’s over six billion human population.
Furthermore, global warming is not the result of increased levels of carbon dioxide.
It is quite the opposite.
Increase in carbon dioxide production levels has been shown to be directly proportionate to increase in global temperatures. But, this is the sort of sinister chicanery repeatedly plied by media sorcerers and elite propagandists.
They pervert lies to appear as truth.
While it is true, there is a direct link between carbon dioxide and the earths overall temperature, climate change propaganda has distorted the true nature of that relationship. In other words, science is being distorted to fit a predetermined and prevailing political agenda. The fundamental assumptions of the climate change movement are based on a series of systematic inversions, distortions, and lies by omission.
The international inter-governmental panel on climate change, a non-government organization created under the auspices of the UN, remains notorious for its ‘notable’ consensus, consisting of over twenty-five-hundred scientists. Turns out, a great percentage of this list is padded out by survey experts, magazine reviewers, and climate journalists. In addition, the percentage of legitimate scientists listed is dubious as well. Though not reported by the media, many of these eminent scientists have asked to have their names removed. Some, have even gone so far as to threaten legal action against the panel, when it was discovered their names had not been redacted after repeated requests.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of America’s National Academy of Sciences, commented that key members of the IPCC had in fact censored what were construed as negative comments made by some of the contributing scientists.
“This report,” Seitz commented,” is not what it appears to be-it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.”
Seitz’ damaging comments went on to state:
“None of the studies cited show clear evidence that can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases of greenhouse gasses. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to anthropogenic or man made causes.”
Seitz went on to scathingly conclude:
“I have never witnessed a more than disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
More telling was the committee’s response to Seitz’ missive, stating that although it had chosen to delete any comments by scientists that could have been construed as negative to overall political sensibilities, “there had been no dishonesty or bias in the report,” and that, “uncertainties about the cause of global warming had not been suppressed.”
The committee went on to say:
“The changes had been made,” it stated, “in response to comments made from governments, individual scientists, and non-government organizations.”
Clearly, the climate change agenda is not about science, but politics, quickly being transformed into a dogmatic religion, tailor made for future generations of the 21st century.
Steeped within the milieu of fantastical flight of fancy, Aldous Huxley’s seminal work of dystopian literature ‘Brave New World’ was nonetheless revolutionary. It presented a nightmare future, where humans aren’t so much born, as they are cloned, hatched and then programmed to fit rigid social roles ruled over by a global, corporate governing structure. Within this global societal structure, exists a rigidly maintained social order, spanning predetermined social roles, from the leadership and administrative class of the Alpha’s, down to the mindless drones called Epsilons, who perform repetitive, grunt-like manual labor.
In the world of high brow literature, Huxley was hailed as a visionary. In the realm of speculative geopolitics, the book was held up as a warning, much like President Eisenhower’s farewell address to the American people, in which he warned of guarding against the unwarranted influence, “whether sought or unsought, of a growing military industrial complex.” While it may have seemed Huxley and the former US president were somewhat heroic, in broadcasting warnings of covert dark forces threatening the tranquility of a peaceful and democratically minded society, seemingly no one has entertained the idea these men may have represented not visionaries of literature or politics, but rather monsters in the guise of benevolent seers.
This is the ruling elites method of operation on clear display.
What appears to the public as a guru, or benevolent leader, leading one down the primrose path to individual freedom and liberation, is in actuality, to those adept and armed with the lucidity of critical thinking, a charlatan guiding one along a sorrowful path, towards the barbed wired gates of slavery’s imprisoning gulag.
For, as it turns out, Huxley nor Eisenhower represented social commentators set at arms length, but conspirators, elemental actors deployed to play out their roles on the world stage, at the behest of a well oiled propaganda machine, funded by global banking elites.
If one has perused a good cross section of information available here, one is able to readily connect the dots of a vast movement to control human mass consciousness, a monolithic program molding human behaviors with systematic application of negative and positive stimuli, delivered through avenues of modern media; television, publishing, and Hollywood movies.
This, in combination with standardized public school education, and the rigid dogmatism of the world’s established religious and political ideologies, collectively represent an effective weapon with which to fight a war, fought not on a physical battlefield, but a psychological one. In other words, the world’s masses are trapped in an open air ‘Skinner box’, victims of an ongoing psychological and experimental program, intent on assiduous application of social human conditioning and indoctrination.
In truth, Huxley’s own politics belonged to an ideology known as Fabian socialism. The Fabians were a group of elite British intellectuals who believed that in order to change human consciousness to accept the development of a global governing structure, such acceptance must be incrementally induced over a period of decades or generations, rather than relying on the immediate social rupture of a single violent revolution.
Unknown to many, at the same time Huxley’s ‘visionary’ book was being hailed as a work of fantastical fiction by those in literary circles, Huxley himself, while touring on the American lecture circuit, conceded that the book was in fact, not a flight of fancy, or the product of pure imagination, but a blueprint. During a speech made at Berkeley University, before his death in 1962, Huxley told an enthralled audience that the narrative of the book actually outlined genuine scientific developments that would reshape the world into a scientific dictatorship:
“It seems to me, that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced-is precisely this, that we are now in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the ruling oligarchy, which has existed and will presumably always exist, to get people to love their servitude. And this is the ultimate benevolent revolution.”
Although, at first glance, it may seem Huxley was observing these ‘series of techniques’ from a far flung, objective remove, he in fact, was a member of the elite inner circle, quite privy to the technological and social developments of which he was speaking.
Huxley’s family had stood at the forefront of scientific and technological development for several decades going back to the turn of the twentieth century. Huxley’s grandfather, T.H., was known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, for his strident defense of the theory of evolution. In fact, the Huxley’s were but one thread of a very deceptive interrelated web of prominent British families, including the Galton’s, Wedgwood’s, and Darwin’s.
These famed and elite British families became obsessed with eugenics, a pseudo-scientific philosophy developed by Francis Galton, a human genetic theory running concurrent with the theory of evolution, predicated on the idea that ‘inferior’ strains of genetic humans must be either eliminated or somehow reprogrammed.
Huxley’s brother Julian, was a founder of the Word Wildlife Fund, and also became president of UNESCO (United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization). In the organizations founding document, Julian Huxley writes:
“It is however, essential, that the theory of eugenics be brought entirely within the borders of science. For, as already indicated, in the not too distant future, the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics.”
Preceding Julian’s stewardship of UNESCO was Sir Charles Galton Darwin. In his book, ‘The Next Million Years’, he writes:
We would have to put up with human nature for one million years, or the time it takes for a new species to gain prominence. Unless, we can have an internal revolution. This would come about if means were discovered of deliberately altering human nature itself.”
As a possible solution to what Darwin observed as the common man’s genetic difficulties, Darwin went on to reflect:
“Life in the crowded conditions of cities has many unpleasant features. However, if human nature could be significantly altered, these problems could be overcome, not so much by improving these conditions, but by getting the lower classes to actually liking them.”
Darwin was even more explicit about his desire to bring about a world governing order: “If then, there is ever to be a world government, it will have to coerce a minority-and indeed it may often be a majority-into doing things they don’t want to do.”
Steeped in this Machiavellian milieu, is it surprising Aldous Huxley composed such a stirringly nightmarish vision of a future dystopian existence for mankind?
It is clear, given the tight knit and incestuous family relationships detailed, that Huxley’s visionary tone was merely tongue in cheek, not a warning, but the expression of a covert blueprint, that of a world governance, cloaked in the guise of fantastical literary fiction.
Yes, folks, truth is indeed, stranger than the strangest of fictions.